Therapist Adherence Measure--Revised; Dutch Version

Abstract. The Therapist Adherence Measure (TAM-R) is a central assessment within the quality-assurance system of Multisystemic Therapy (MST). Studies into the validity and reliability of the TAM in the US have found varying numbers of latent factors. The current study aimed to reexamine its factor structure using two independent samples of families participating in MST in the Netherlands. The factor structure was explored using an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) in Sample 1 ( N = 580). This resulted in a two-factor solution. The factors were labeled “therapist adherence” and “client–therapist alliance.” Four cross-loading items were dropped. Reliability of the resulting factors was good. This two-factor model showed good model fit in a subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in Sample 2 ( N = 723). The current finding of an alliance component corroborates previous studies and fits with the focus of the MST treatment model on creating engagement.

Download Full-text

The Lack of Cross-National Equivalence of a Therapist Adherence Measure (TAM-R) in Multisystemic Therapy (MST)

European Journal of Psychological Assessment ◽

10.1027/1015-5759/a000262 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 32 (4) ◽

pp. 312-325 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Aurelie M. C. Lange ◽

Ron H. J. Scholte ◽

Wim van Geffen ◽

Reinier Timman ◽

Jan J. V. Busschbach ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rasch Analysis ◽

Multisystemic Therapy ◽

Frequency Distributions ◽

Adherence Measure ◽

Therapist Adherence ◽

Item Functioning ◽

The Us ◽

Sample Characteristics ◽

Cross National

Abstract. This two-study report investigates the equivalence of the Dutch Therapist Adherence Measure Revised (TAM-R) to the US original. The TAM-R is a questionnaire measuring therapist adherence to the treatment model of Multisystemic Therapy (MST). Monitoring of therapist adherence is essential for evidence-based interventions to ensure the quality of the delivered treatment. International implementation of the TAM-R assumes cross-national equivalence, even though this assumption has never been investigated. In study 1 Rasch analysis was applied to 1,875 Dutch TAM-R reports and the response category frequency distributions of the items of 1,875 US TAM-R reports. Response frequencies were more heavily skewed in the US compared to the Netherlands and several items showed Differential Item Functioning (DIF). Study 2 investigated whether adaptations to the translation of the items and response categories could improve equivalence. For this purpose, 237 families were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 versions (original TAM-R, adapted items only, adapted items and response categories) and the analyses from study 1 were replicated. Results indicated that equivalence was not improved by the adapted translations. The article concludes with a discussion of several potential other sources of bias, such as differences in sample characteristics, implementation of MST, and response styles.

Download Full-text

The German Post-Critical Belief Scale: Internal and External Validity

Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie ◽

10.1024/0044-3514.34.4.219 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 34 (4) ◽

pp. 219-226 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Bart Duriez ◽

Claudia Appel ◽

Dirk Hutsebaut

Keyword(s):

Internal Structure ◽

Present Article ◽

External Validity ◽

German Version ◽

Dutch Version ◽

German Sample ◽

Belief Scale ◽

Internal And External Validity

Abstract: Recently, Duriez, Fontaine and Hutsebaut (2000) and Fontaine, Duriez, Luyten and Hutsebaut (2003) constructed the Post-Critical Belief Scale in order to measure the two religiosity dimensions along which Wulff (1991 , 1997 ) summarized the various possible approaches to religion: Exclusion vs. Inclusion of Transcendence and Literal vs. Symbolic. In the present article, the German version of this scale is presented. Results obtained in a heterogeneous German sample (N = 216) suggest that the internal structure of the German version fits the internal structure of the original Dutch version. Moreover, the observed relation between the Literal vs. Symbolic dimension and racism, which was in line with previous studies ( Duriez, in press ), supports the external validity of the German version.

Download Full-text